Coolhand

Resurrection Evidence Top 10

Recommended Posts

If we are to take to Gospel account at face value, other things happened.  

  • There was an earthquake that destroyed the Temple.
  • The three hours of darkness
  • The tombs opened and the dead walked among the living.  They were seen by "many".

None of this comes to the notice, of the historians of the time.  

 

In addition, there are other details of the Gospel accounts, that simply don't ring true.

  • Jesus was followed everywhere, by huge crowds, that pressed in on all sides.
  • The Romans had no idea who Jesus was.  They needed Judas to identify Jesus for them.

 

In the end, I suppose it comes down to belief.  In this case, faith is a double edged sword.  As Paul tells it, faith requires a literal Adam and Eve.  In my opinion, another can of theological worms.

 

 

1 Corinthians 15 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 1and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

First, it wasn't documented in history.  It may have been documented in your religious book, but your religious book is not a history book, nor were it's writers historians.  They were pushing a specific belief system, and so cannot be considered in any way unbiased.  To be a history book, you need to know who the actual authors were and be able to vet their credentials and biases.  Since a lot of the bible is anonymous, that negates the historical aspect.  And you cannot prove that it was written by eye witnesses, as claimed in the article.

Point two, is also entirely reliant on biblical "history", which isn't really history.  So no.

Point three.  Straw man.  I haven't said they knowingly lied.  See, the argument began as "It cannot be proven because it isn't historically recorded".  Not, "they were promoting a knowing lie."  Thus your article has swapped out arguments to one that they can defeat.

Why would they make up the ressurection story if jesus turned out to be a fraud?  I don't know why they would.  I don't know their motives.  Why does the guy I work with continually make up stories that are easily disproven?  Who can say?  Motive is irrelevant to the truth.

Lies and deception are typically done for some gain.  Maybe.  But...being honestly mistaken?  You consider these testimonies to be written at the actual time of Jesus.  The problem is there is no proof that they were written at the time of Jesus.  Maybe they were written later, by people who honestly believed this to be the truth.  Maybe the stories were adopted from other cultures and the names were changed to protect the innocent.  I don't know their motive, but neither do you.

Pulling off such a hoax, as if it were difficult.  At the time, many were illiterate.  Word of mouth was the primary means of transmitting stories.  They changed by word of mouth.  So by the time they were written down, maybe they changed.  On top of that, the writers didn't have a vast amount of opposition to their writings.  And then lets not forget the vast amounts of information that was lost throughout the centuries, some deliberately burned by the church.  But yeah, they obviously had no say in changing the bible, taking things out and deciding what went in, right?

How do we know thousands of people immediately converted?  Show me the evidence.  And remember, your book is not really history, so it doesn't count.  Evidence not in your bible, that thousands immediately converted.

Sorry, got tired of rebutting the same argument rephrased...so I quit reading.  Not really evidence.  It's an opinion piece, at best.  Maybe there was an actual Jesus, but even that cannot be proven.  The arguments provided seem stale to me.  Probably to many others as well.

As Johnathan said, it boils down to belief.  If you believe, you will find this all compelling evidence.  If you don't, you will probably be able to point out the flaws as easily as I did.  The fact that the article says it isn't logical doesn't actually make it illogical, any more than the bible existing must make it true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

First, it wasn't documented in history.  It may have been documented in your religious book, but your religious book is not a history book, nor were it's writers historians.  They were pushing a specific belief system, and so cannot be considered in any way unbiased.  To be a history book, you need to know who the actual authors were and be able to vet their credentials and biases.  Since a lot of the bible is anonymous, that negates the historical aspect.  And you cannot prove that it was written by eye witnesses, as claimed in the article.

Point two, is also entirely reliant on biblical "history", which isn't really history.  So no.

Point three.  Straw man.  I haven't said they knowingly lied.  See, the argument began as "It cannot be proven because it isn't historically recorded".  Not, "they were promoting a knowing lie."  Thus your article has swapped out arguments to one that they can defeat.

Why would they make up the ressurection story if jesus turned out to be a fraud?  I don't know why they would.  I don't know their motives.  Why does the guy I work with continually make up stories that are easily disproven?  Who can say?  Motive is irrelevant to the truth.

Lies and deception are typically done for some gain.  Maybe.  But...being honestly mistaken?  You consider these testimonies to be written at the actual time of Jesus.  The problem is there is no proof that they were written at the time of Jesus.  Maybe they were written later, by people who honestly believed this to be the truth.  Maybe the stories were adopted from other cultures and the names were changed to protect the innocent.  I don't know their motive, but neither do you.

Pulling off such a hoax, as if it were difficult.  At the time, many were illiterate.  Word of mouth was the primary means of transmitting stories.  They changed by word of mouth.  So by the time they were written down, maybe they changed.  On top of that, the writers didn't have a vast amount of opposition to their writings.  And then lets not forget the vast amounts of information that was lost throughout the centuries, some deliberately burned by the church.  But yeah, they obviously had no say in changing the bible, taking things out and deciding what went in, right?

How do we know thousands of people immediately converted?  Show me the evidence.  And remember, your book is not really history, so it doesn't count.  Evidence not in your bible, that thousands immediately converted.

Sorry, got tired of rebutting the same argument rephrased...so I quit reading.  Not really evidence.  It's an opinion piece, at best.  Maybe there was an actual Jesus, but even that cannot be proven.  The arguments provided seem stale to me.  Probably to many others as well.

As Johnathan said, it boils down to belief.  If you believe, you will find this all compelling evidence.  If you don't, you will probably be able to point out the flaws as easily as I did.  The fact that the article says it isn't logical doesn't actually make it illogical, any more than the bible existing must make it true.

 

 

 

 

While we are looking at the "historical" aspects, we might as well keep going:

 

Paul never actually met Jesus.  At least, not in the flesh.  He had visions.  The prophet Mohammed also never met Jesus.  He had visions.  Based on Mohammed's visions, the Koran was created.  Much of it dealing with Jesus.  The Koran denies that Jesus died on the Cross.

 

Why are we to accept one set of visions as true -- and the other as false?  How much of Christianity is there, without Paul's content?  What makes the Gospels -- or the rest of the New Testament -- more historic than the Koran?

 

Remember.  Islam is growing faster than Christianity.  In time, it will be the world's largest religion.  In any event, counting believers is a poor way to know the truth.  We need objective means to determine such matters.

 

That's right.  When it comes to God, there is no such thing as objective, verifiable, facts.

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Contradictions in the Life, Death, Resurrection narrative.

 

There were 2 angels at the tomb.  Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb.


 A partial report is not a false report. Just because each gospel author doesn’t report every detail of a story doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate. A divergent account is not a false account. For example, Matthew speaks of one angel at Christ’s tomb whereas John mentions two. A contradiction? Not at all. Simple math says if you have two, you also have one. Matthew did not say there was only one angel; if he had then we would have a true contradiction. Instead, he just records the words of the one who spoke.
The same critics who try and point out contradictions in the gospels would no doubt cry 'collusion' if they found exact verbal parallelism and a singular account of the resurrection. The recordings of the resurrection found in the four gospels are found to harmonize quite well upon closer examination

.

  1. An angel rolls away stone from tomb before sunrise (Matt. 28:2-4). The guards are seized with fear and eventually flee
  2. Women disciples visit the tomb and discover Christ missing (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1)
  3. Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2)
  4. Other women remain at tomb; they see two angels who tell them of Christ’s resurrection (Matt. 18:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8)
  5. Peter and John run to the tomb and then leave (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10)
  6. Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb; She see's 2 angels standing at the head and feet of where the body had lain (John 20:12). Christ appears to her (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18).
  7. Jesus appears to the other women (Mary, mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) (Matt. 28:8-10).

The fact that John only mentions Mary Magdalene going to the tomb is not a contradiction, because its true. John chose to just focus on Mary Magdalene, but failing to mention the other women does not constitute a contradiction or even a discrepancy. Mark mentions 3 women, Luke just specifies women, and Matthew mentioned the 2 Mary's. Having something mentioned in one gospel but not another does not constitute a contradiction. Now if one gospel said that 'no' women went to the sepulcher while the others said they did, then you would have a contradiction. 

 

And in regard to the day of the crucifixion, I believe there were 2 separate Sabbaths during the week Jesus died, so no contradiction.

 

WEDNESDAY CRUCIFIXION – SATURDAY RESURRECTION

mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bibleissues.org%2Fimages%2Fwednesdayview.png&t=1592165919&ymreqid=c21e0fb9-9940-ef9b-2f9e-ed000d017700&sig=f6OacgZNi958jM2Eq62fUw--~C  

 

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Coolhand said:

 

I've been preaching this for years Cool, but if its not in an illusive 2000 year old history book, nonbelievers won't accept it.. Nearly all of the Apostles were persecuted, imprisoned, beaten and killed, which to me speaks volumes that they didn't suffer such fates to protect a lie. There was no earthly upside for professing Christ and human nature demonstrates that they would not hold to an untrue account in a life & death situation. Even if an unbiased nonreligious historian did record the events as accurately portrayed in the gospels, nonbelievers would not accept that as proof either.. jmo

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Contradictions in the Life, Death, Resurrection narrative.

 

 

 

 

I would say the 'cockroach in the muffin' so to speak is the point the Rabbi DID NOT address, which was the resurrection of Jesus itself, of which all 4 Gospels are all in agreement that it did happen. Anyone see that?

 

The 4 gospels mention people who are there and things that were said. The Rabbi is presenting it as if each Gospel writer is saying that the only people mentioned were there.  No one is saying that.

 

The events following  that were mentioned  would be an issue if they excluded or somehow made impossible what the other gospel witnesses said, which they didnt.

 

The accident witness example the Rabbi gives misses the same point that his dealing with the resurrction does....the fact that no one said the accident DID NOT happen. Same with the Gospel accounts.

 

So how would that happen? The witnesses all agree the accident happened but not on the details, so the case would be thrown out and then say it never happened because they each mention certain things that are left out by others?

 

The point is that they all agree that the resurrection happened. The main point of the Gospels is to inform of that, and the Rabbi is focusing on MAKING detail conflicts in order to toss the whole "muffin" .

 

I would argue the cockroach is in the muffin he is serving.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Coolhand

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I've been preaching this for years Cool, but if its not in an illusive 2000 year old history book, nonbelievers won't accept it.. Nearly all of the Apostles were persecuted, imprisoned, beaten and killed, which to me speaks volumes that they didn't suffer such fates to protect a lie. There was no earthly upside for professing Christ and human nature demonstrates that they would not hold to an untrue account in a life & death situation. Even if an unbiased nonreligious historian did record the events as accurately portrayed in the gospels, nonbelievers would not accept that as proof either.. jmo

 

Yeah, good point.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

I've been preaching this for years Cool, but if its not in an illusive 2000 year old history book, nonbelievers won't accept it.. Nearly all of the Apostles were persecuted, imprisoned, beaten and killed, which to me speaks volumes that they didn't suffer such fates to protect a lie. There was no earthly upside for professing Christ and human nature demonstrates that they would not hold to an untrue account in a life & death situation. Even if an unbiased nonreligious historian did record the events as accurately portrayed in the gospels, nonbelievers would not accept that as proof either.. jmo

 

 

Then it's true?  All observers were biased?

 

:coffee:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Then it's true?  All observers were biased?

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

lol.......nice........

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Coolhand said:

 

 

lol.......nice........

 

 

It may not be obvious.  I try very hard to be fair.  And I actually listen.     :mellow:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I want to pause and declare my positions.  I have my own biases, and I'm upfront about them.

 

I'm nobody's judge.  If someone chooses to believe, then much joy may it bring them.  If they want me to believe -- then let them show me something.  Something other than Scripture.

 

I am an Apatheist.  A God that can not be demonstrated to exist, doesn't matter.  Even if that God actually exists, it still doesn't matter.  I'm done with arguing about faith.  Belief, non-belief and disbelief are all irrelevant.  God either is, or is not.  Arguments change nothing.  I'm also done with arguing about metaphysics.  Nothing good comes from these arguments.  Plenty of acrimony, but nothing good.

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/14/2020 at 3:33 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I want to pause and declare my positions.  I have my own biases, and I'm upfront about them.

 

I'm nobody's judge.  If someone chooses to believe, then much joy may it bring them.  If they want me to believe -- then let them show me something.  Something other than Scripture.

 

I am an Apatheist.  A God that can not be demonstrated to exist, doesn't matter.  Even if that God actually exists, it still doesn't matter.  I'm done with arguing about faith.  Belief, non-belief and disbelief are all irrelevant.  God either is, or is not.  Arguments change nothing.  I'm also done with arguing about metaphysics.  Nothing good comes from these arguments.  Plenty of acrimony, but nothing good.

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

 

Not true, you know. Medicine has determined that getting your heart rate up from time to time can be good for your health. So, aside from physical exercise... :whist: :coffee:

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Key said:

Not true, you know. Medicine has determined that getting your heart rate up from time to time can be good for your health. So, aside from physical exercise... :whist: :coffee:

 

 

My favorite physic is prune juice.  I don't need a meta-physic.     :birgits_giggle:  Certainly, not more than one, which would be metaphysics.     :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.